Not to loudly argue, but it looked like Badchad’s arguments were actually pretty strong but his actions were fairly vile. I honestly could not follow his arguments, I am out of my depth on the areas he went to, but again his actions were terrible, not his arguments. Is this at all a fair way to look at it?
Jim
Yeah, you shoulda written it like this:
I mean, if you wanted to be taken seriously.
Yes, I think so. There are all sorts of valid ways to look at it. The reason I think his arguments are weak (present tense because he’s still posting) are because they are, for the most part, circular. His worst action, as far as I’m concerned, aside from stalking Poly, is that he ignores me and has never responded to a single post I ever made. Ever.
Maybe he’s just not that into you.
The other guy may look like a rube, but you (general you) have shown yourself to be completely untrustworthy and a liar to boot. The only way this is a “win-win” is if people’s regard for you is so low already that no bad act on your part could possibly drive it any lower. And under those circumstances, you’re right: If you start from a position that no one respects you, then people who enter into bargains with you clearly do so at their own risk.
, silly me. You know you really are enjoying these thread way too much. 
I am struggling to find a way to say this that does not look like a cheap shot, but perhaps you answered your own question and he is ignoring you. That should hopefully be a much lesser offense than stalking another poster, especially a poster that you value as a friend. The stalking part was creepy.
Jim
A motto suitable for framing and hanging in the office of every scum telemarketer, pump-and-dump stock fraudster, and Nigerian 419 scammer around the globe.
Next time I pay a neighborhood kid to mow my lawn and he disappears with the cash and my lawn mower, leaving the tall grass swaying in the summer breeze, I will try to take it as a valuable lesson about game theory.
Yes, I guess we can expect them to close down any future Der Trihs Pit threads, since he has decided not to participate in them.
It would be good if you embraced him while you called him an “intellectual brother”. Easier to give him the Heimlich maneuver as he chokes on his vomit.
This has been stated several times; yet it has also been suggested that the moderators will not tolerate future arrangements along these lines, and that this is somehow not inconsistent treatment. Can you fight my ignorance on this point, please?
For example, I note that there’s a MPSIMS thread going right now, in which various posters are naming prices for which they would be willing to leave the boards forever. At least two of these prices are $20, by posters that have already had paid subscriptions for a few years. Let’s say I have $40 burning a hole in my pocket, and now I want to play my own version of “The Most Dangerous Game,” and rack up some trophies and/or bragging rights. What if I take them both up on their offer, all in good fun among consenting adults? Then I’ll have the thrill of knowing I’ve deprived the boards of two subscribers-- and for a bargain price compared to the going rate.
Again, this is all between consenting adults, yes? Similar to a bet? Surely no different from the current situation, which has already been deemed perfectly acceptable. So will the Moderators interfere in future deals or not? And if so, why?
My bolding
Coming from someone who thought the modal ontological proof was hot shit, this is particularly funny.
Hey, don’t you realize; if it’s possible for Liberal to win an argument, he must win an argument.
Question? What question? It isn’t that I’ve asked him a question, and he’s ignoring it. I’ve asked him lots of questions and challenged many of his arguments over a looooong period of time — years. Never a response.
I realize you’re gunning to be Miss Wit, but your statement is actually true — of every argument by every person. If it is possible that an argument wins, then it must of necessity win.
So now you’re parodying yourself? You’re going to put some snarkers out of work…
Ah, but what kind of win? One can “win” if one’s opponents are stupid and easily impressed, but that’s not exactly something one can take to the bank.
And I made Miss Wit my bitch long ago. I have her chained up in my basement, wearing a ballgag and dog collar.
If it is possible that an argument wins, then it must of necessity win. If it hasn’t won, it wasn’t possible. You sound like a creationist making fun of evolution. You should study more.
The real shame would be if this post were lost among all the other snarking going on.
Oh, so now you won’t even give me your blood! It’s all clear to me now: you just want to play gladiator, don’t you? That’s what this is really all about! I can’t believe I fell for the old “I’m freshly oiled up and prepared to give away $500” ploy! I should have known that sooner or later you’d suggest a re-enactment of Thunderdome. Why is it always Thunderdome with you? Please, can’t we just get beyond Thunderdome?
In any case, I feel it’s best not to enable your worrisome yet strangely compelling fantasy, for both our sakes. Perhaps at this point we should just mutually concede that there were misunderstandings on both sides, that both parties were partially to blame, that you acted in a horribly shameful and dishonorable manner, and that ultimately gentlemen may reasonably agree to disagree. I think it’s best to leave this unfortunate incident in the past, especially the part where your mind went into that strange place with the lirpa and the screaming Dopers.
Yes, god, a tragedy worse than Iraq.
Those complaining about “moderator inconsitency” are missing the point.
One instance of this kind of thing is just a goof. One numbskull dumb enough to pay someone $500 not to post, another numbskull dumb enough to accept. The likelihood of a repeat episode is pretty low, since the particular combination of numbskullery that resulted in this particular result is pretty unlikely to ever be repeated, even with an infinite number of numbskulls banging away on infinite keyboards. This one instance will simply go down in board lore along with butler monkeys and gotcha ya.
If it turns out that the moderators were wrong, and that offering and accepting money in return for leaving the boards turns into the latest fad, well, then they’ll change their mind. That’s not inconsistent, that’s recognizing reality. There’s no need to have consistent rules for whacky numbskull one of a kind actions, drawing up consistent rules is a pointless waste of time. But you do need to have consistent rules for whacky numbskull constantly repeated actions.
If this turns out to be the former, then no action needs to be taken. It it turns out to be the latter, only then are the moderators are forced to draw up and enforce a new policy about it.
I’m betting that this is a one-off. Despite the existance of people willing to accept money to stop posting, there are very few people crazy enough to offer that money. As has been pointed out, all you have to do is put the really annoying people on ignore, or just wait till they get themselves banned, and hey, you’ve saved yourself $500.